Defining the Power of Government I believe as our fore-fathers in a "wise and frugal governement, which shall restrain men from injuring one another," but which otherwise leave them free to regulate their own affairs. In an effort to minimize the influence of the central government, I believe in reducing the number of employees, forbid any elected official from drawing retirement pay, maintain and train an adequate military force for the protection of our nation against any ememy whomsoever they may be, and cut the national debt. I am delighted that President Madison after much encouragement from Jefferson added a Bill of Rights to the document in the form of ten amendments. Those rights that Jefferson insisted upon---among them freedom of speech, assembly, and practice of religion---have become fundamental and synonymous with American life.I believe the type of government that I described in the paragraph above can be defined as a form of democracy. There are two forms of Democracy:
In spite of democracy tolling the beautiful sounds and thoughts of freedom like a church bell with its beautiful sounds It can be devastating to people that are selfish and thinking what democracy can do for them rather than what personal sacrifices they can do to improve and enhance freedom. For instance may I refer you to the 56 men who signed the declararation of Independence, they all just before the end of their lives suffered devastation and all died a terrible death. Those who came after them unselfish with the same patriotic responsibilities, not only for their generation but all subsequent generations to follow gave us a constitution of democracy. We, in the last few generation with liberal ideas, like Chamberlain of England appeasing Hitler we are appeasing or tolerating commuism, facism and all sorts of "ism" these ism cannot coexist with Americanism. Frankly and honestly I say these "ism" with the NAACP, LULAC, and KUKLUXKLAN should be forbidden to practice in this country only under the penality of death. I have heard people say I don't agree with you but I will fight for your right to express your-self. When I first heard this remark it had a bitter and false ring. Now I know why! I will fight for freedom, but I will not fight for your right to practice any "ism" except Americanism For a democracy to flourish the peoples must be educated in academics, and grow in wisdom; and taught patrotism. Recorded history will reveal to you if you research, that there was a country probably one of the "Greek states" 500 B.C. that had an excellent government under the form of democracy. Freedom rung only for two hundred years. It collapsed! As the wise man said,"It is the enemy from within that is more devastating than the enemy from without." That wise man was our Lord Jesus Christ,
As all the Samartian that came to the well to see Jesus after the woman had informed them that there was a man whom she believed was the Messiah and they believed because of the expierence factor they expierenced in his presence, not what the woman said with enthusiasm, I like wise believe in his Divine Majesty, not because I read the bible but because of expierence factors relating to His Divine Majesty, thus he revealed Himself. I believe in the bible as a text book, that is to guide me, and for inspiration. I am a member of the Universal Church.
I believe in one God with all my heart and soul, I love my-self unto God and therefore I am perfectly capable in loving my fellow-man as mself. This is why I give every-man my profound respect on a silver platter laced in gold. My behavior to my fellow-man is by the grace of God that flows through me. God Is a Trinity; the Father, the Son, and the HolyGhost, they harmonize, they desire the same thing. If God is Infinite and that we are a part of him, then we are finite and should not be at odds with one another. For God does not tell one man one thing and then go to another and give a different version of the same subject. The Trinity does not provoke dissention among his creatures. Then why do you argue the bible and sometimes become at odds with one another.
I Just come across some notes I jotted down many years ago, I will share them with you." Life of Socrates":
Socrates' life reflected his ethical views, and was entirely devoted to seeking the truth and goodness. He liveed simply, and could share equallly well in a luxurious banquet with his wealthy friends, or endure the hardship of a military campaign. On one occasion, he marched barefoot through the snow without seeming to mind.
Socrates was always loyal to the democratic form of government at Athens. During the reign of terror that followed the death of Pericles, he disobeyed the order of the Thirty Tyrants to bring in a fellow-citizen for execution.
Socrates married Xanthippe and had several children by her. Xanthippe was ill tempered, but Socrates was willing to put up with her. He said, that by living with her, he learned to get along easily with the rest of the world.
I just happen to remember another item in my notes, a" branch in sociology," that I studied many years ago and it might be of interest here. The subject is "Social Contract":
Social Contract, in political philosophy, idea of a compact between the ruled and their rulers, In primeval times, according to the theory, the individual was born into an anarchic state of nature, which was happy or unhappy according to the particular version. He then, by exercising natural reason, formed a society (and a government) by means of a contract with other individuals.
Theories of the social contract differed according to their purpose: some were designed to justify the power of the sovereign; some to safeguard the individual from oppression by an all-too-powerful sovereign. Although similar ideas can be traced back as far as the ancient Greeks, social contract theories had their greatest currency in the 17th and 18th centuries and are associated with such names as Thomas Hobbs, John Locke, and Jean Jacques Rousseau. According to Hobbes(Leviathan, 1651), the state of nature was one in which there were no enforceable criteria of right and wrong. Each person took for himself all that he could; man's life was "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short." The state of nature was therefore a state of war, which could be ended only if men agreed (in a social contract) to give their liberty into the hands of a sovereign, who was thenceforward absolute, on the sole condition that their lives were safe-guarded by sovereign power.
Locke (in the second of Two Treatises of Government, 1690) differed from Hobbes insofor as he described the state of nature as one in which the rights of life and property were generally recognised under natural law, the inconveniences of the situation arising from insecurity in the enforcement of those rights. He therefore argued that the obligation to obey civil government under the social contract was conditional upon the protection not only of the person but also of private property. If a sovereign violated these terms, he could be justifiable overthrown
Rousseau (in Du contrat social, 1762) held that in the state of nature man was unwarlike and somewhat undeveloped in his reasoning powers and sense of morality and responsibility. When, however, men agreed for mutual protection to surrender individual freedom of action and establish laws and government must thus rest on the consent of the governed, the volonte generale ("general will").
The more perceptive social contract theorists, including Hobbes, always recognised that their concepts of the social contract and the state of nature were unhistorical and could be justified only as hypotheses useful for the clarification of timeless political problems.